Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 23-808 (2026)

Legislative finding and intent — Cause of action.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Legislative finding and intent — Cause of action.

(1) The legislature finds that it is not the furnishing of alcoholic beverages that is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons and it is the intent of the legislature, therefore, to limit dram shop and social host liability; provided, that the legislature finds that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages may constitute a proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons under the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) of this section.

(2) No claim or cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury, death or other damage caused by an intoxicated person against any person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated person, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(3) A person who has suffered injury, death or any other damage caused by an intoxicated person, may bring a claim or cause of action against any person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated person, only if:

(a) The intoxicated person was younger than the legal age for the consumption of alcoholic beverages at the time the alcoholic beverages were sold or furnished and the person who sold or furnished the alcoholic beverages knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time the alcoholic beverages were sold or furnished that the intoxicated person was younger than the legal age for consumption of the alcoholic beverages; or

(b) The intoxicated person was obviously intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverages were sold or furnished, and the person who sold or furnished the alcoholic beverages knew or ought reasonably to have known that the intoxicated person was obviously intoxicated.

(4) (a) No claim or cause of action pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall lie on behalf of the intoxicated person nor on behalf of the intoxicated person’s estate or representatives.

(b) No claim or cause of action pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall lie on behalf of a person who is a passenger in an automobile driven by an intoxicated person nor on behalf of the passenger’s estate or representatives.

(5) No claim or cause of action may be brought under this section against a person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person unless the person bringing the claim or cause of action notified the person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated person within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the claim or cause of action arose by certified mail that the claim or cause of action would be brought.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the term "alcoholic beverage" shall include alcoholic liquor as defined in section 23-105, Idaho Code, beer as defined in section 23-1001, Idaho Code, and wine as defined in section 23-1303, Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: Jones v. Lynn, 498 P.3d 1174 (Idaho 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. Lynn, 498 P.3d 1174 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 110× “On November 7, 2017, Lynn answered the first amended complaint, asserting the affirmative defense that “Plaintiffs’ claims were barred because of, but not necessarily limited to, their failure to comply with pre-suit notice requirements of I.C. § 23-808.” On November 30, 2017,…”

Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 987 P.2d 300 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 50× “1 The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the BTP and PKA Fraternities holding that the unambiguous language of I.C. § 23-808, Idaho’s “Dram Shop” Act, bars suits by intoxicated persons against the server of alcohol and, in turn, bars any suits which are…”

Fell v. Fat Smitty's, 467 P.3d 398 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 33× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fat Smitty’s, ruling that the Fells’ claims were barred by Idaho’s Dram Shop Act (I.C. § 23-808) because the Fells failed to give Fat Smitty’s timely notice of their claims.”

McLean v. Maverik Country Stores, Inc., 135 P.3d 756 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 22× “He and his parents brought an action against the driver and the store who sold beer to the driver, and the district court dismissed the claim against the store pursuant to Idaho Code § 23-808 (4)(b). We affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Bergman v. Henry, 766 P.2d 729 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 48× “In light of the legislature's action in enacting I.C. § 23-808, which became effective on April 3, 1986, I doubt that there will be a sufficient number of these cases to have a substantial effect upon the administration of justice.”

Slade v. Smith's Mgmt. Corp., 808 P.2d 401 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 20× “Reversal of the summary judgment is not inconsistent with the passage of I.C. § 23-808, which became effective April 3, 1986.”

Jones v. Starnes, 245 P.3d 1009 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “Jones under the Dram Shop Act, I.C. § 23-808(3)(b). The district court held that the Dram Shop Act was inapplicable because the Appellants had failed to assert any facts that would show "(1) that the assailant had been a patron of Boomers and (2) that Boomers' employees…”

Fischer v. Cooper, 775 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 12× “goes on to state: While the Court's opinion recognizes that the Idaho legislature passed a "dram shop act," I.C. § 23-808, effective April 3, 1986, it fails to recognize that that legislation is more narrowly drafted and tailored than the Court's broad statement that "[w]e see…”

Idaho Dep't of Labor v. Sunset Marts, Inc., 91 P.3d 1111 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 5× “In 1986, the legislature enacted Idaho Code § 23-808 (Dram Shop Act), subsection (1) of which provides: The legislature finds that it is not the furnishing of alcoholic beverages that is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons and it is the intent of the…”

Smith v. Sewell, 858 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1993). · cites it 2× “1992); Idaho Code § 23-808 (Supp.1992); Ill.Rev.”

Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 474 S.E.2d 450 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “Stat.Ann. § 9:2800.1 (West 1991); Me.Rev.Stat.”

Charles v. Seigfried, 651 N.E.2d 154 (Ill. 1995). “2d 135 ; Idaho Code § 23-808 (Supp.1994) Indiana Brattain v.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 23-808(1) — 3 cases

Slade v. Smith's Mgmt. Corp., 808 P.2d 401 (Idaho 1991). “Reversal of the summary judgment is not inconsistent with the passage of I.C. § 23-808, which became effective April 3, 1986.”

Jones v. Lynn, 498 P.3d 1174 (Idaho 2021). “On November 7, 2017, Lynn answered the first amended complaint, asserting the affirmative defense that “Plaintiffs’ claims were barred because of, but not necessarily limited to, their failure to comply with pre-suit notice requirements of I.C. § 23-808.” On November 30, 2017,…”

Jones v. Lynn (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 23-808(3) — 2 cases

Idaho Dep't of Labor v. Sunset Marts, Inc., 91 P.3d 1111 (Idaho 2004). “In 1986, the legislature enacted Idaho Code § 23-808 (Dram Shop Act), subsection (1) of which provides: The legislature finds that it is not the furnishing of alcoholic beverages that is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons and it is the intent of the…”

Reed v. Foster, 936 P.2d 1316 (Idaho 1997).

— Idaho Code § 23-808(3)(a) — 2 cases

Jones v. Lynn (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 23-808(3)(b) — 3 cases

Jones v. Starnes, 245 P.3d 1009 (Idaho 2011). “Jones under the Dram Shop Act, I.C. § 23-808(3)(b). The district court held that the Dram Shop Act was inapplicable because the Appellants had failed to assert any facts that would show "(1) that the assailant had been a patron of Boomers and (2) that Boomers' employees…”

Jones v. Lynn (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 23-808(4) — 1 case

Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 987 P.2d 300 (Idaho 1999). “1 The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the BTP and PKA Fraternities holding that the unambiguous language of I.C. § 23-808, Idaho’s “Dram Shop” Act, bars suits by intoxicated persons against the server of alcohol and, in turn, bars any suits which are…”

— Idaho Code § 23-808(4)(a) — 3 cases

Jones v. Lynn (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 23-808(4)(a)(b) — 1 case

Slade v. Smith's Mgmt. Corp., 808 P.2d 401 (Idaho 1991). “Reversal of the summary judgment is not inconsistent with the passage of I.C. § 23-808, which became effective April 3, 1986.”

— Idaho Code § 23-808(5) — 5 cases

Fell v. Fat Smitty's, 467 P.3d 398 (Idaho 2020). “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fat Smitty’s, ruling that the Fells’ claims were barred by Idaho’s Dram Shop Act (I.C. § 23-808) because the Fells failed to give Fat Smitty’s timely notice of their claims.”

Slade v. Smith's Mgmt. Corp., 808 P.2d 401 (Idaho 1991). “Reversal of the summary judgment is not inconsistent with the passage of I.C. § 23-808, which became effective April 3, 1986.”

Jones v. Lynn (Idaho 2021).

Waechter v. Mitchell, 858 P.2d 822 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.